https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #11)
> (In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #8)
> > > It appears that the sentiment is that this testcase should actually be
> > > valid
> >
> > Do you have a reference for that? The reason for this not to be valid,
> > presented at the bottom of
> > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-August/059190.html> "Re:
> > [cfe-dev] return lvalue move instead of copy?" looks rather convincing to
> > me.
>
> (Namely, slicing by move leaving the object in a partially-moved state that
> might not maintain invariants.)
>
> That's a good point. I guess the rule we're looking for will still require
> that the returned object being treated as an xvalue be bound to some rvalue
> reference to the whole object, rather than a base subobject.
>
> So Marek, please go ahead and apply your patch after all.
Will do.
> And similarly,
> maybe refine your 87109 patch to only reject the conversion function if it
> comes from a base class.
I'll send a patch to the ML, I don't feel like committing that without a
review.
